Joel Dahmen accuses Kang of cheating

[lowheel]

Unfortunately there is no satisfactory resolution to this. In Kang's mind he feels his drop was legitimate. In Dahmen's mind he feels Kang's drop wasn't.

 

In addition, eyewitness "testimony" can be unreliable.

 

"In Kang's mind he feels the drop was legitimate". Really? Maybe in Kang's mind he know's he got away with cheating his way into a bigger payday and an Open Championship birth.

 

I am giving him the benefit of the doubt as, unlike you, I had no idea what was going through his mind.

 

 

He really doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt. Multiple people said he was wrong.

 

A couple also said he wasnt. Its unreliable at best and thats why the rules on interpretation calls like this is what it is. hes really the only one who was looking down his line and who knows his flight. the ref has his hands tied because A he didnt see it and B rules are basically in kangs favor. its one thing if Kang asked those around him "hey did you see where that crossed?" he said he immediately knew and didnt hit a provisional. We might not like it but its the rules. Its between kang and himself.If he did "cheat" he has to live with it. I doubt he would risk his reputation over potentially losing 15k-20k when he has all his playing privileges as is. Kang also waxed him by 6 shots on sunday maybe that rubbed him the wrong way. I have a hard time believing he would do something that egregious with literally zero to gain. he shot a 64 on sunday for petes sake.A bogey puts him what ? 5th? a double 6th? doesnt smell right to me. Feels like something personal led up to this

[bscinstnct]

one of those witnesses was a very vocal friend of his so the bias is there and can easily influence the rest. Dahmen looks worse here for running on twitter like a baby.make a clear and concise statement through golf channel or cbs and move on.Going on social media playing the tough guy is pretty sad really. Interpretation rulings like this from 250 yards out are impossible when its a 50/50 judgement call.

 

Youre right

 

JD and all the witnesses should have gone on gc or cbs and called Kang a cheater.

 

Seriously though do you think Dahmen called Kang a cheater to his face? hint he didnt. He did it from the safety of his smart phone.I respect that hes a cancer survivor and all that but he handled it the wrong way. None of the witnesses have any superior vantage point then the player who hit the shot. Dahmen by defintion was standing 8-10 feet to his side when it happened. Just that small difference alone and angle can give you false depth perception.its not black and white as you seem to suggest. Dahmen in my opinion showed his cards in the way he called it out which has left me very suspicious of his motivations

 

Did JD accuse him to his face?

 

"Klock was the ShotLink volunteer on the 10th hole.

 

Klock, like Dahmen, is sure Kang's ball never crossed the hazard (and thus he took an illegal drop).

 

"Kang's second shot was very far left and at no point ever came close to being in bounds from the initial point of entry 225 yards or so back," Klock told Golfweek Monday, also saying the ball was six or eight feet deep in the hazard.

 

"Kang was insistent ('95 percent sure' in his own words) his ball came back and entered the hazard at about 35 yards out. I caught bits and pieces of the exchange, but the rules official did quote '95 percent sure is not 100 percent sure' before driving Kang back to look at the line again. Kang then returned and argued some more with Dahmen, to which

 

(Dahmen) replied, 'If you can sleep at night, then take your drop."

 

http://www.golfwrx.c...s-say-what-now/

 

So like i said didnt have the sack to call him that to his face and then proceeded to run and yell it on twitter like a baby. Ive got no skin in this game other than how Dahmen acted after the fact. thats the telling part. he still shook his hand on the 18th and still signed his card and then became a keyboard warrior.

 

He said,

 

"(Dahmen) replied, 'If you can sleep at night, then take your drop.""

 

That was after arguing with the official for 30 minutes.

 

Isnt that calling him a cheater to his face?

 

 

[bladehunter]

Joel just has that look doesnt he ? That Top Flight Security look ..... Of the world Craig !!

 

 

 

 

 

[lowheel]

BSc,

 

No it isnt no matter how much you want it to be. Its semantic passive aggressive pu@@y footing around. I would at least respect it if he did it to his face but he didnt. He ran to twitter to be an internet tough guy.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

BSc,

 

No it isnt no matter how much you want it to be. Its semantic passive aggressive pu@@y footing around. I would at least respect it if he did it to his face but he didnt. He ran to twitter to be an internet tough guy.

 

Again, are you sure?

[jallen0119]

BSc,

 

No it isnt no matter how much you want it to be. Its semantic passive aggressive pu@@y footing around. I would at least respect it if he did it to his face but he didnt. He ran to twitter to be an internet tough guy.

 

You are way off base on this. Did JD call Kang a "cheater" to his face? No. But let me ask you this. You are playing in a competition and an opponent questions your drop, argues with the rules official and you for 30 mins, and then tells you "If you can sleep at night, take your drop"; all of this and you don't think your opponent is questioning your integrity? You are acting as though JD acted all was normal and then took to Twitter to call Yang out for his drop. That is so far from how this went down. JD was plenty "aggressive" on the golf course.

[vjswing]

Both are in the field at the John Deere.

 

I'm thinking 1:00 pm Thursday tee time with Bryson.

 

My tickets will be worth their weight in gold if these two clowns end up getting grouped together!

[jonsnow]

BSc,

 

No it isnt no matter how much you want it to be. Its semantic passive aggressive pu@@y footing around. I would at least respect it if he did it to his face but he didnt. He ran to twitter to be an internet tough guy.

 

You are way off base on this. Did JD call Kang a "cheater" to his face? No. But let me ask you this. You are playing in a competition and an opponent questions your drop, argues with the rules official and you for 30 mins, and then tells you "If you can sleep at night, take your drop"; all of this and you don't think your opponent is questioning your integrity? You are acting as though JD acted all was normal and then took to Twitter to call Yang out for his drop. That is so far from how this went down. JD was plenty "aggressive" on the golf course.

 

Alright, who is Yang & how did he get involved in this? Is this a Y.E. Yang sighting?

[Ashley Schaeffer]

BSc,

 

No it isnt no matter how much you want it to be. Its semantic passive aggressive pu@@y footing around. I would at least respect it if he did it to his face but he didnt. He ran to twitter to be an internet tough guy.

 

You are way off base on this. Did JD call Kang a "cheater" to his face? No. But let me ask you this. You are playing in a competition and an opponent questions your drop, argues with the rules official and you for 30 mins, and then tells you "If you can sleep at night, take your drop"; all of this and you don't think your opponent is questioning your integrity? You are acting as though JD acted all was normal and then took to Twitter to call Yang out for his drop. That is so far from how this went down. JD was plenty "aggressive" on the golf course.

 

Yep.

[Longballbogey]

[ebrasmus21]

BSc,

 

No it isnt no matter how much you want it to be. Its semantic passive aggressive pu@@y footing around. I would at least respect it if he did it to his face but he didnt. He ran to twitter to be an internet tough guy.

 

You are way off base on this. Did JD call Kang a "cheater" to his face? No. But let me ask you this. You are playing in a competition and an opponent questions your drop, argues with the rules official and you for 30 mins, and then tells you "If you can sleep at night, take your drop"; all of this and you don't think your opponent is questioning your integrity? You are acting as though JD acted all was normal and then took to Twitter to call Yang out for his drop. That is so far from how this went down. JD was plenty "aggressive" on the golf course.

 

Alright, who is Yang & how did he get involved in this? Is this a Y.E. Yang sighting?

 

Jon, this is one of the funniest posts in this whole damn thread. Lol.

 

I almost spit up my water at work.

[soap1984]

I like the innocent until proved guilty line; that exists because you need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in the context of criminality.

 

In the context of golf rules, I'd say the standard is somewhat relaxed and we can use the facts to determine the most likely outcome. Saying you can't rely on any one person's account because you can never be 100% certain should then equally apply to Kang rendering it an argument that is useless in this context. If you asked a murderer what he or she saw on the night of the murder, I'm quite certain they would also lie about what they saw, for the same reasons Kang did.

 

To remind everyone again, the ONLY person with any reason to lie about this is Kang. While that is not definitive proof that Kang cheated, it is something that has to be considered if you want to form a reasonable opinion and be taken seriously.

 

It's funny that I am also seeing others on here claiming Dehman did nothing and then complained after. The reason Dehman mentioned Kang cheating on Twitter was because of the 25 minute delay, the reason for the delay was that the ruling was far from clear cut and included Dehman arguing with Kang about the ruling.

[Sean2]

I see we have reached a consensus. :-)

[Ignatius Reilly]

I like the innocent until proved guilty line; that exists because you need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in the context of criminality.

 

In the context of golf rules, I'd say the standard is somewhat relaxed and we can use the facts to determine the most likely outcome. Saying you can't rely on any one person's account because you can never be 100% certain should then equally apply to Kang rendering it an argument that is useless in this context. If you asked a murderer what he or she saw on the night of the murder, I'm quite certain they would also lie about what they saw, for the same reasons Kang did.

 

To remind everyone again, the ONLY person with any reason to lie about this is Kang. While that is not definitive proof that Kang cheated, it is something that has to be considered if you want to form a reasonable opinion and be taken seriously.

 

It's funny that I am also seeing others on here claiming Dehman did nothing and then complained after. The reason Dehman mentioned Kang cheating on Twitter was because of the 25 minute delay, the reason for the delay was that the ruling was far from clear cut and included Dehman arguing with Kang about the ruling.

 

While that's true, every pro has the same incentive every single day. Do you think they're all cheating?

 

I agree that Dahmen was pretty clear from the start that he disagreed w Kang's version of what he saw.

 

I see we have reached a consensus. :-)

 

Clearly!!!

[DJGainer]

I see we have reached a consensus. :-)

 

What, agree to disagree?

[bladehunter]

I cant wait to see who the hall monitor calls out next...maybe its somebody unstable like Billy Ho, or Pat Perez... lets see some real fireworks!

[Golfjack]

Maybe next time poll all the non relevant bystanders including volunteers and toddlers to see what their opinions on what the ruling should be? That way we can have a completely comprehensive understanding of all the opinions which don't matter.

 

This is like one of those instances where there is no instant replay for referee use, yet the TV captures it. Audiences can see what happened, but the ref can't change their call. In this instance, we don't even have instant replay, just eyewitnesses from 30 to 200 yards away from various angles. How is anything a sure thing? Just because some people came out to say they saw it one way doesn't mean nobody saw it another. Just because somebody throws a twitter rant doesn't make them right! Did Grayson Allen have anything to gain during his twitter escapades? Was he right? I'm glad he laid off Twitter and is playing some real good golf now.

 

People try to make tangential arguments here. Even worse than Dahmen who was at least there. Everybody has an opinion, but that doesn't mean Kang is a cheater. Judging where the ball crossed into the hazard has always been the hardest thing for golfers. Anybody who says they know 100 percent it crossed where is lying. The angle, being 200 yards away, etc makes it near impossible. How many times have you walked up to a hazard where the ball landed and you walked up to exactly the point and found the ball immediately? But the rules of golf dictates that you need to be 100% sure. Who walks back and hits again if they are 90% sure? 70?

[Nixhex524]

Maybe next time poll all the non relevant bystanders including volunteers and toddlers to see what their opinions on what the ruling should be? That way we can have a completely comprehensive understanding of all the opinions which don't matter.

 

This is like one of those instances where there is no instant replay for referee use, yet the TV captures it. Audiences can see what happened, but the ref can't change their call. In this instance, we don't even have instant replay, just eyewitnesses from 30 to 200 yards away from various angles. How is anything a sure thing? Just because some people came out to say they saw it one way doesn't mean nobody saw it another. Just because somebody throws a twitter rant doesn't make them right! Did Grayson Allen have anything to gain during his twitter escapades? Was he right? I'm glad he laid off Twitter and is playing some real good golf now.

 

People try to make tangential arguments here. Even worse than Dahmen who was at least there. Everybody has an opinion, but that doesn't mean Kang is a cheater. Judging where the ball crossed into the hazard has always been the hardest thing for golfers. Anybody who says they know 100 percent it crossed where is lying. The angle, being 200 yards away, etc makes it near impossible. How many times have you walked up to a hazard where the ball landed and you walked up to exactly the point and found the ball immediately? But the rules of golf dictates that you need to be 100% sure. Who walks back and hits again if they are 90% sure? 70?

 

Isn't he a basket ball player? Grayson Murray maybe?

 

I don't see what Dahmen has to gain if this is just some kind of personal attack on Kang, that theory makes zero sense to me. It does sound like he called him on it on the course but what do you want the guy to do after 18, throw his dumb hat on the ground and start swinging fists? It's still a game of honor at the end of the day and he can still act in a respectful manner even if he disagrees with what Kang did and I think thats the right way to handle it. Many take to twitter to rant or complain or call others out, why do we pretend all of a sudden that's not what its used for..LOL Be real. Again, I just don't see what Dahmen gains about lying here.... Kang, definitely benefitted from it and in my eyes, looks bad. Now if Dahmen does this kind of thing every few months going forward then maybe there's something else there.... right now, I gotta think something happened that shouldn't have.

[lowheel]

BSc,

 

No it isnt no matter how much you want it to be. Its semantic passive aggressive pu@@y footing around. I would at least respect it if he did it to his face but he didnt. He ran to twitter to be an internet tough guy.

 

You are way off base on this. Did JD call Kang a "cheater" to his face? No. But let me ask you this. You are playing in a competition and an opponent questions your drop, argues with the rules official and you for 30 mins, and then tells you "If you can sleep at night, take your drop"; all of this and you don't think your opponent is questioning your integrity? You are acting as though JD acted all was normal and then took to Twitter to call Yang out for his drop. That is so far from how this went down. JD was plenty "aggressive" on the golf course.

 

Nope youre just too emotional. Repeat after me: he. did. not. call . him. a.cheater. to. his. face. No matter the amount of mental gymnastics youre doing here, he didnt.

You can be passive aggressive all day long if you dont use the word you use when you run to to your smart phone to post on twitter youre a coward. period

[Ashley Schaeffer]

BSc,

 

No it isnt no matter how much you want it to be. Its semantic passive aggressive pu@@y footing around. I would at least respect it if he did it to his face but he didnt. He ran to twitter to be an internet tough guy.

 

You are way off base on this. Did JD call Kang a "cheater" to his face? No. But let me ask you this. You are playing in a competition and an opponent questions your drop, argues with the rules official and you for 30 mins, and then tells you "If you can sleep at night, take your drop"; all of this and you don't think your opponent is questioning your integrity? You are acting as though JD acted all was normal and then took to Twitter to call Yang out for his drop. That is so far from how this went down. JD was plenty "aggressive" on the golf course.

 

Nope youre just too emotional. Repeat after me: he. did. not. call . him. a.cheater. to. his. face. No matter the amount of mental gymnastics youre doing here, he didnt.

You can be passive aggressive all day long if you dont use the word you use when you run to to your smart phone to post on twitter youre a coward. period

 

 

Are you sure?

I only ask because I want to know if you are sure, and haven't answered yet, despite being asked multiple times.

Thanks in advance.

[Awsi Dooger]

This isn't news. I didn't read the entire thread but I've posted about this topic countless times. Pros cheat on this aspect more than everything else combined. They take the most favorable interpretation imaginable and then imagine an even better one. For a long time I thought I was simply seeing more of it than others because I attended Doral all my life with so many water holes. But once I started attending other events it is every bit as blatant elsewhere.

 

I'll always believe they think they are somehow entitled to it, since they are forced to obey so many silly little rules and occasionally call themselves on a moving ball, etc.

 

Vision is fine on tour unless this situation is at hand.

[JonnyKrasnodar]

If he really disagreed with the drop he should have refused to sign the card, regardless of whether or not a referee would have signed it. It's about principles. And on principle someone other than your playing partner signing the card is a damning indictment.

[jallen0119]

BSc,

 

No it isnt no matter how much you want it to be. Its semantic passive aggressive pu@@y footing around. I would at least respect it if he did it to his face but he didnt. He ran to twitter to be an internet tough guy.

 

You are way off base on this. Did JD call Kang a "cheater" to his face? No. But let me ask you this. You are playing in a competition and an opponent questions your drop, argues with the rules official and you for 30 mins, and then tells you "If you can sleep at night, take your drop"; all of this and you don't think your opponent is questioning your integrity? You are acting as though JD acted all was normal and then took to Twitter to call Yang out for his drop. That is so far from how this went down. JD was plenty "aggressive" on the golf course.

 

Nope youre just too emotional. Repeat after me: he. did. not. call . him. a.cheater. to. his. face. No matter the amount of mental gymnastics youre doing here, he didnt.

You can be passive aggressive all day long if you dont use the word you use when you run to to your smart phone to post on twitter youre a coward. period

 

What am I "emotional" about? How many times on tour have you seen a competitor argue with another player and a rules official 30 minutes? You are so hung up on the word "cheater", that you are ignoring what all took place.

 

And did JD head straight to Twitter and call Kang a "cheater"? Wasn't the "he cheated" comment made in response to someone asking why it took so long to play a hole?

 

Here's a little advice partner. Next time you are playing golf, you take a drop, and your opponent says "If you can sleep at night, take your drop", he is calling you a "cheater". Chances are, the guy is not going to take your call again next time you want to play. What did you expect JD to do? Punch him in the face on the course? What would it take for him to not be a "coward"?

[sekrah]

Unfortunately there is no satisfactory resolution to this. In Kang's mind he feels his drop was legitimate. In Dahmen's mind he feels Kang's drop wasn't.

 

In addition, eyewitness "testimony" can be unreliable.

 

"In Kang's mind he feels the drop was legitimate". Really? Maybe in Kang's mind he know's he got away with cheating his way into a bigger payday and an Open Championship birth.

 

I am giving him the benefit of the doubt as, unlike you, I had no idea what was going through his mind.

 

 

He really doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt. Multiple people said he was wrong.

 

A couple also said he wasnt.

 

An anonymous Reddit user said he wasn't. Everyone who put their name out there in the public sphere said Kang was wrong.

[sekrah]

BSc,

 

No it isnt no matter how much you want it to be. Its semantic passive aggressive pu@@y footing around. I would at least respect it if he did it to his face but he didnt. He ran to twitter to be an internet tough guy.

 

Dahman argued for 30 minutes. Another group had to be waved through...ON THE PGA TOUR. And your point is that he wasn't aggressive enough on the course? What?!?!?

[ClintDagger]

BSc,

 

No it isnt no matter how much you want it to be. Its semantic passive aggressive pu@@y footing around. I would at least respect it if he did it to his face but he didnt. He ran to twitter to be an internet tough guy.

 

Dahman argued for 30 minutes. Another group had to be waved through...ON THE PGA TOUR. And your point is that he wasn't aggressive enough on the course? What?!?!?

Yep. Guarantee you Kang felt like he was being accused of cheating in that moment. Not sure how it can be interpreted any other way when something is argued so vociferously and ends with a “I hope you can sleep at night” type comment.

[eagle1997]

[bladehunter]

BSc,

 

No it isnt no matter how much you want it to be. Its semantic passive aggressive pu@@y footing around. I would at least respect it if he did it to his face but he didnt. He ran to twitter to be an internet tough guy.

 

You are way off base on this. Did JD call Kang a "cheater" to his face? No. But let me ask you this. You are playing in a competition and an opponent questions your drop, argues with the rules official and you for 30 mins, and then tells you "If you can sleep at night, take your drop"; all of this and you don't think your opponent is questioning your integrity? You are acting as though JD acted all was normal and then took to Twitter to call Yang out for his drop. That is so far from how this went down. JD was plenty "aggressive" on the golf course.

 

Nope youre just too emotional. Repeat after me: he. did. not. call . him. a.cheater. to. his. face. No matter the amount of mental gymnastics youre doing here, he didnt.

You can be passive aggressive all day long if you dont use the word you use when you run to to your smart phone to post on twitter youre a coward. period

 

What am I "emotional" about? How many times on tour have you seen a competitor argue with another player and a rules official 30 minutes? You are so hung up on the word "cheater", that you are ignoring what all took place.

 

And did JD head straight to Twitter and call Kang a "cheater"? Wasn't the "he cheated" comment made in response to someone asking why it took so long to play a hole?

 

Here's a little advice partner. Next time you are playing golf, you take a drop, and your opponent says "If you can sleep at night, take your drop", he is calling you a "cheater". Chances are, the guy is not going to take your call again next time you want to play. What did you expect JD to do? Punch him in the face on the course? What would it take for him to not be a "coward"?

 

Refusing to sign the card and not acting like a 13 year old girl on twitter would be a start.instead of protesting it properly through the tour Chanel’s he takes the “ lets get a mob going for my cause “ approach. The old Twitter. Look at me look at me play.

[mosesgolf]

IMO this should've been handled in the locker room. JD - what if you're wrong? There are way too many morons who jump to conclusions, judge and make life miserable for others. All it takes is a tweet these days.

[cardoustie]

I know I've been wrong when I thought someone was in a hazard earlier and then we found the ball farther up. And it has happened to me as well, where a very aggressive opponent was saying you went in WAY back here and then was proven wrong (you know the personality type, they think they are always right and an in your face approach has intimidated others into their way many many a time historically)

 

I give the benefit of the doubt, gentlemen's game etc

 

When you are not directly behind a shot it is VERY hard to pick points and see flight curvature etc